coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Poltava. He is a former manager of the State Company “Znamya” (the “Company”; Державне підприємство «Виробниче об'єднання «Знамя»).
5.  In 1996 the applicant was convicted and sentenced for embezzlement of the Company funds and his conviction became final. Since then the applicant has unsuccessfully attempted to have the proceedings re-opened and the conviction repealed.
6.  In August 1996 the Poltava Regional Prosecutors' Office, acting on behalf of the Company, brought a civil claim against the applicant for compensation of damage caused by his offence.
7.  The hearings began in March 1998. Until February 2000 the court scheduled some thirteen hearings with intervals ranging from one week to six months. Seven hearings were adjourned on account of the applicant's absences or requests and four hearings on account of the absence of both parties. According to the applicant, most of his absences were attributable to defective notifications about the date of a hearing. The Government did not comment on this issue.
8.  On 17 February 2000 the District Court allowed the claim and awarded the Company 96,682 hryvnyas[1] against the applicant. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 20 May 2000 the District Court returned the applicant's appeal as “not lodged” on account of his failure to pay the court fee. The applicant appealed, seeking to be exempted from the payment.
10.  On 12 October 2000 the local municipal council exempted the applicant from paying the court fee and on 16 November 2000 the Regional Court declared his appeal admissible.
11.  On 7 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 February 2000.
12.  Between January 2001 and May 2002 the District Court scheduled three hearings (in April and November 2001 and March 2002). One hearing was adjourned on account of the judge's sickness and two other hearings on account of the parties' failure to appear.
13.  On 22 May 2002 the District Court left the claim without consideration due to the parties' second failure to appear for the hearings. This decision was not appealed against within the statutory time-limit and became final.
14.  On 11 December 2002 the Prosecutor's Office applied to the District Court for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 22 May 2002 maintaining, that it had not been informed of this decision within the time-limit for lodging an appeal. The application was granted on 17 January 2003.
15.  On 15 May 2003 the Regional Court allowed the appeal and re-opened the proceedings, having found that the parties had not appeared as the District Court had not duly notified them about the dates of the hearings. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision to re-open the proceedings.
16.  On 20 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.
17.  Between October 2004 and July 2005 the District Court scheduled three hearings (one in May and two in July 2005).
18.  In July 2005 the plaintiff dropped the claims and on 14 July 2005 the proceedings were terminated.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Udachnyy, a town in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.
5.  The applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover the monetary value of state promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car.
6.  On 2 April 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) found for the applicant and awarded him 138,967 Russian roubles.
7.  By a decision of 14 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. On the same date the judgment of 2 April 2003 acquired legal force but it has never been enforced.
8.  On 16 July 2004 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) referred the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya), upon the defendant's application for supervisory review.
9.  On 12 August 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 2 April 2003, as upheld by the decision of 14 May 2003, and dismissed the applicant's claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the Federal Law on State Promissory notes of 1 June 1995, as amended on 2 June 2000, which extended the period of redemption of the state promissory notes until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium's assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting a re-examination of the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Konotop, Sumy region.
5.  On 15 October 1998 the Konotop Court, following the request of Mrs P.G., instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on a charge of minor bodily injuries.
6.  On 17 February 1999 the applicant brought similar counter-charges against Mrs P.G. and Mrs P. V.
7.  On 17 November 2000 the Konotop Court acquitted the applicant, Mrs P.G. and Mrs P.V.
8.  On 19 December 2000 the Sumy Regional Court (herinafter “the Regional Court”), upon Mrs P.G.'s cassation appeal, quashed this decision in part concerning the applicant's acquittal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court held that the first instance court had failed to examine all the factual circumstances of the case.
9.  On 23 March 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and UAH 200[1] fine (suspended as time-barred).
10.  On 26 April 2001 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the ground that the instance court erred in calculation of the statutory time-limit for the sanction.
11.  On 13 June 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and UAH 200 fine (suspended as time-barred).
12.  On 11 October 2001 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld this decision.
13.  On 19 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed all previous decisions on the ground of serious procedural violations by the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
14.  On 29 November 2002 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to 180 hours of public work (suspended under the Amnesty Act). It also ordered the applicant to pay Mrs P.G. UAH 977[2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
15.  On 18 February and 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Lensk, a town in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.
5.  The applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover the monetary value of state promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car.
6.  On 3 April 2003 the Lenskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) found for the applicant and awarded her 91,500 Russian roubles.
7.  By a decision of 5 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. On the same date the judgment of 3 April 2003 acquired legal force but it has never been enforced.
8.  On 1 September 2004 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) referred the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Court, upon the defendant's application for supervisory review.
9.  On 23 September 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 3 April 2003, as upheld by the decision of 5 May 2003, and dismissed the applicant's claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the Federal Law on State Promissory notes of 1 June 1995, as amended on 2 June 2000, which extended the period of redemption of the state promissory notes until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium's assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting a re-examination of the case.
10.  The applicant submitted that she had not been properly notified of the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) of 23 September 2004 and therefore she could not attend it. The defendant's representative had attended the hearing and presented his arguments. According to the Government, the applicant had been informed of the date and the time of the hearing by a letter of 13 September 2004. The applicant submitted that she had become aware of the decision of 23 September 2004 on 8 November 2004 when she had received it by post. She provided the Court with an envelope sent by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) postmarked on 8 November 2004.
4.  On 14 December 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).
5.  On 28 December 1993 the Batman Magistrates' Court ordered his detention on remand.
6.  On 25 January 1994 the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court against the applicant and twelve other people, charging him with carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 27 December 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code of membership of the PKK and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.
8.  On 10 November 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant and a certain R.K., holding that the applicant should have been convicted of membership of the PKK and for throwing explosives, under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code. The case against the applicant and R.K. was referred to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
9.  On 3 November 1998 the first-instance court convicted the applicant under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment for membership of the PKK and to five years, six months and twenty days' imprisonment for having thrown explosives.
10.  On 15 June 1999 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.
11.  On 26 September 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. However, it acquitted the applicant of the charge under Article 264 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 22 February 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that it had not been submitted within the statutory time-limit.
4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Pskov, the Pskov Region.
5.  In 1986 he took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result he suffered from the extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. On unspecified dates the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded social benefits, to be paid monthly.
6.  On 13 August 2002 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region granted the applicant's claim against the Welfare Office of the administration of Pskov (Управление Социальной защиты населения администрации г. Пскова) for increase of food allowance. The court awarded the applicant 1,089.60 Russian roubles (RUR) to be paid monthly and ordered the defendant to adjust the forthcoming payments proportionally to the increase of the minimum subsistence level.
7.  On 24 September 2002 the judgment of 13 August 2002 acquired legal force, after it had been upheld on appeal by the Pskov Regional Court.
8.  In December 2003 the defendant filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 13 August 2002, as upheld on 24 September 2002, with the Pskov Regional Court.
9.  On 24 May 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 August 2002 in part concerning the future adjustments of the allowance and upheld the remainder of the judgment.
10.  By a judgment of 23 December 2003 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region granted another of the applicant's actions against the Welfare Office of the administration of Pskov for adjustment of the food allowance. The court increased the monthly payments to RUR 1,231. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 5 January 2004.
11.  The Welfare Office of the administration of Pskov failed to execute the judgments of 13 August 2002 and 23 December 2003.
12.  In February 2006 the local authorities contacted the applicant with a view of reaching an agreement in the matter. However, the applicant refused to accept the terms of the agreement.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Ryazan.
5.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. On unspecified dates in the past, he had taken part in peace-keeping operations in former Yugoslavia.
6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings against military unit no. 03611, seeking to recover the unpaid daily allowances owed to him for his participation in the above operations.
7.  In the proceedings before the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison (Рязанский гарнизонный военный суд) the representative of the military unit fully accepted the applicant's claim.
8.  He submitted that it was impossible to pay the sum owed to the applicant, since there was no mechanism developed for payment of daily allowances to servicemen who had been commissioned abroad. Furthermore, no funds were available for this purpose.
9.  On 11 December 2001 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison granted the applicant's claim and ordered the defendant to pay him 377,776.12 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 14,100 euros at the material time).
10.  The court found that the applicant could not be deprived of the right to receive the sum owed to him because of the absence of an appropriate mechanism of payment. No appeal was lodged and this judgment became final on 24 December 2001.
11.  On 5 February 2002 the Military Court issued an execution writ.
12.  On an unspecified date, the applicant submitted the execution writ to the Ryazan Regional Branch of the Federal Treasury.
13.  It appears that the Federal Treasury informed the applicant that it was impossible to enforce the judgment as there were no budgetary funds available on the defendant's account for this purpose. He was advised to apply to the Ministry of Finance for the latter to recover the amount due from the Ministry of Defence.
14.  On 16 September 2002 the applicant forwarded the execution writ to the Ministry of Finance.
15.  On 6 November 2002 the Moscow Military Circuit Court, acting as a supervisory review instance upon the application by the President of that Court, quashed the judgment of 11 December 2001 as unlawful and unfounded and remitted the case at first instance for a fresh examination.
16.  It does not appear that the applicant and his counsel were notified of the supervisory review proceedings in advance or that they were able to take part in them.
17.  According to the Government, in April 2003 the Military Court rejected the applicant's claims. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Military Circuit Court by two decisions dated 16 May, 10 and 17 June 2003.
4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1943 and 1986 respectively and live in Novigrad.
5.  On 2 February 1998 the applicants brought a civil action against the State and the hospital R. in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking non-pecuniary damages for the death of the first and the second applicant's son and the third applicant's brother.
6.  The court held hearings on 4 June 1998, 18 January, 10 June and 2 September 1999. The applicants withdrew their action in respect of the State. Meanwhile the insurance company C.O. intervened in the proceedings.
7.  The next hearing was held on 10 July 2003.
8.  On 29 April 2004 the court gave judgment awarding the damages sought in part. Following an appeal by the respondents, on 21 March 2006 the Zagreb County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
9.  Meanwhile, on 10 December 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 17 September 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicants' complaint, finding a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarding them each compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK).
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 22 March 1994 the applicant was granted a lease by the Istanbul Municipality to run a car park on a plot of land by the coast in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul.
6.  On 14 and 27 July 1999 and 24 March 2000 the National Estate Directorate attached to the Istanbul Revenue Office issued three orders requesting the applicant to pay compensation for occupying the car park between 1 March 1998 and 31 December 1999.
7.  On 11 August 1999, 29 September 1999 and 14 April 2000 respectively the applicant filed three separate cases with the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Istanbul Revenue Office, requesting that the orders be annulled. The first case concerned the period between 1 March and 31 December 1998, the second case concerned the period between 1 January and 1 August 1999 and the third case concerned the period between 1 August and 31 December 1999.
As regards the first two proceedings
8.  On 25 May 2000 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the orders dated 14 July 1999 and 27 July 1999. The administrative authority appealed. Subsequently on 17 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective judgments of the Istanbul Administrative Court.
9.  On 24 June 2005 the Istanbul Administrative Court followed the reasoning set out in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and dismissed the cases. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 13 March 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective judgments of the Istanbul Administrative Court once again.
11.  On 13 November 2006 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to annul the respective compensation orders.
12.  According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, both actions are apparently still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
As regards the third set of proceedings
13.  On 23 February 2001 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the compensation order dated 24 March 2000. The administrative authority appealed and subsequently on 4 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court.
14.  On 18 April 2006 the Istanbul Administrative Court followed the reasoning set out in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and dismissed the case. According to the information in the case file, this action is still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Volgograd, the Volgograd Region.
6.  The applicant brought court proceedings claiming an increase in the monthly disability allowance she was entitled to receive. On 24 May 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd awarded the applicant 21,245.46 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and increased the allowance to RUR 1,214 as of 1 May 1999.
7.  On 15 June 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 91,039.35 as compensation for late payment of the allowance. On 1 September 2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court reduced that amount to RUR 1,500.  On 29 January 2001 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,790.17 as compensation for the depreciation of the award under the judgment of 24 May 1999 due to inflation.
8.  On 13 June 2001 the District Court increased the monthly allowance to RUR 4,070.89 as of 10 January 2001 and awarded the applicant RUR 20,538.16 in allowance arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 May 2001, and RUR 2,000 as compensation for late payment of that increased allowance.
9.  The above-mentioned judgments were enforced on 25 December 2002.
10.  On 20 February 2002 the District Court adjusted the allowance amount due to the applicant and awarded her RUR 10,162.80.
11.  On 16 July 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 11,104 in arrears for the period from 15 February 2002 to 30 June 2003 and increased the monthly allowance to RUR 3,175 effective as of 1 July 2003. On 27 August 2003 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment. On 2 September 2005 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court quashed those judgments.
12.  The awards under the judgment of 20 February 2002 and that of 16 July 2003 were paid to the applicant on 22 November and 15 December 2005, respectively.
13.  The applicant brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for depreciation of the awards under the judgments of 13 June 2001 and 20 February 2002. On 7 December 2005 the District Court dismissed her claims. On 9 February 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case. Apparently, the proceedings are pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the city of Zhytomyr.
5.  From 1988 to 2001 the applicant worked as a teacher at the Zhytomyr Orphanage (Житомирський обласний будинок дитини; hereafter “the Orphanage”).
6.  On 27 September 2001 the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomir (hereinafter “the Bogunsky Court”) ordered the Orphanage to pay the applicant a total of UAH 3,483.60 (an equivalent of EUR 508.25) in compensation for salary and social benefits arrears (see, in this respect, Kechko v. Ukraine, no. 63134/00, §§ 9-11, 8 November 2005).
7.  In a letter of 10 October 2003, the Zhytomyr Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in her favour could not be enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds. It also pointed out that the 2003 State Budget did not preview the expenditure for teachers' social benefits and that the Zhytomyr Regional State Administration applied to the Ministry of Finance for a loan for the payment of the debt to the applicant.
8.  The judgment of 27 September 2001 remains unenforced.
9.  In November 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Orphanage seeking her reinstatement and compensation for the loss of salary. On 31 May 2002 the Bogunsky Court rejected this claim as unsubstantiated. On 12 September 2002 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 12 February 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.